Re: chown placement

["Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin S. Weber <Ephaeton%gmx.net@localhost> 
wrote:
>> > Given that
>> >  "The ownership of a file may only be altered by a super-user for obvious
>> >  security reasons."
>> A minor inconvenience to have this useful tool under directory which
>> doesn't included to PATH.
> Yeah but what's the problem in having PATH include /usr/sbin?
By default? It isn't a good solution, I think.

>> F.e. you have configuration script which you can and may be want to
>> run under non-privileged user, but script still needs to find chown
>> placement (assume it is under current PATH).
> A minor language thing. For example is abbreviated "e.g." back to the point...
>
> There's a lot of binaries that you can run as a normal user which reside
> in either /sbin or /usr/sbin (think ifconfig -a, a perfectly valid use
> even as non-root user). So the first thing I do on all my machines is
> to have the path be something like
> ~/bin {,/usr,/usr/pkg}/{,s}/bin /usr/games
>
> Maybe you should instead suggest the default path to include all
> directories which contain executables usable as a normal user, that
> is /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin/ /usr/pkg/bin /usr/pkg/sbin /usr/games
I don't agree with /usr/sbin and /sbin, but others are ok.

>> > I can understand the sbin over bin part ... /usr I don't know. It's not
>> > that integral to have (for root) ?
>> Actually, what I'm wondering why...
>
> I think it's because of the intended use of chown. It's a system manager's
> program, so by hier(7) it should live in some sbin.
Possible you are right.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko